Public education’s real problem

After announcing that she will leave her post early as superintendent of Jefferson County Public Schools, Cindy Stevenson departs a board meeting in tears while her supporters applaud and cheer her on Feb. 8. (Kathryn Scott Osler, The Denver Post)

Do people like letter-writer L. Besant really believe that Jefferson Public Schools Superintendent Cindy Stevenson does not care about the needs of Jeffco students, teachers or parents, and that teachers unions are the main cause of most of our educational problems today? What ignorance!

I taught for 28 years, and I belonged to a teachers association, not only because I thought it was my professional obligation, but also because it was the only way to improve my working conditions, and to make sure that administrators were fair, and not capricious, when dealing with teachers.

I have some news for Besant: The biggest problems in education today are all the hours spent on high-stakes testing and data collection, the overcrowded classrooms, and the marginalized curricula, not “crappy teachers and administrators.”

Robert H. Moulton III, Commerce City

This letter was published in the Feb. 15 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

I have some news for Besant: The biggest problems in education today are …not “crappy teachers and administrators.”

Butbutbut th’ YEWnyins is soshelizt!!!!

Best,

D

thor

You need to go back to school for remedial spelling.

toohip

When the right uses their ignorance as a crutch to claim. . . ignorance.

thor

Are you a creative writer in disguise? You are great at fiction.

thor

Mr. Moulton wrote a letter that was no better than the article he condemned. But he did have one redeeming feature. He is correct about this: “all the hours spent on high-stakes testing and data collection.” But will someone tell me what “marginalized curriculum” is.

peterpi

One possibility is teachers having to fight to have biology textbooks in public schools that explicitly and unapologetically mention evolution.

thor

Good point. But if they fail to mention creation, then they are intellectually void. Why? Because both theories should be shown for balance. Students deserve nothing less.

peterpi

Creationism is NOT science.
Teach it in your church! Nothing is stopping you.

Since the 1700s, read it again, thor, the 1700s, science has been steadily pushing back the age of the Earth as older than 6,000 years. First it was tens of thousands of years, then it was millions of years, then it was hundreds of millions of years, now it’s billions of years. And this started looong before you could blame it on atheistic secularist modernism.

thor

Faith doesn’t date the Earth, just how the Earth and the Universe came into being. But theories are theories and they can be taught side by side and let the student decide. As for pushing it back to billions of years, that is only done to prop up theories.

peterpi

Using scientific means, the Earth and the Universe can be shown to be billions of years old. Period. End of story. No real scientist disputes it.
Simple logic says creation theory needs a creator. A creator that science, by definition of both science and a divine creator, cannot prove or disprove. A creator that is beyond the realm of science to measure or detect, and therefore is not science. A creator who relies on believers’ faith alone, and not on any of the human senses or any absolute physical proof.
You may feel faith doesn’t need to date the Earth,, although you contradict yourself with your last sentence. You may feel that the Rock of Ages is more important than the age of rocks (tip o’ the hat: William Jennings Bryan). But the most ardent and fiercest proponents of Intelligent Design, Creation Science, Creationism, or whatever the phrase du jour designed to disguise its agenda is, firmly believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, which means humans were domesticating plants and animals a few thousand years before there was an Earth to place the plants and animals on.
Lastly, tens, and possibly hundreds, of millions of people have no problem believing in God and a 14 billion year old Universe. Believe in God and the Big Bang. Believe in God and evolution. Quit trying to make such people into atheists.

thor

Your last sentence is so disingenuous that I can’t believe you didn’t worry about being struck by lightning for writing it. But that is always your MO, so I’m not surprised that you wrote it. My only question is, why lie when the rest of your argument didn’t require it? Now, about this nonsense-“But the most ardent and fiercest proponents of Intelligent Design,
Creation Science, Creationism, or whatever the phrase du jour designed to disguise its agenda is, firmly believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old…” Can you name just one reliable Creation scientist who promotes that idea? Or is it just another perception you have that you believe is fact?
About my last sentence, it contradicts nothing. The FACT
is, there are two explanations for how we got here. And evolution isn’t one of them. The Universe came into being through a big bang or through a Creator. Evolution is a theory that explains what happened on Earth after it cooled. The science of determining how old the Earth is is not evolution but geology.

tomfromthenews

“Can you name just one reliable Creation scientist who promotes that idea?”

I can do you one better: I cannot name even one “reliable Creation scientist”!

peterpi

Well, there is that, …

thor

Very clever. Very clever. And I’m sure you can’t name one credible evolution scientist either.

Tbone

Like Darwin?

peterpi

Touche.

tomfromthenews

Well, maybe, um… ALL OF THEM? Since evolution is based on actual scientific observation and all.

primafacie

I blew my mind when I was a kid and theorized — without one shred of scientific study, just sitting around wondering — that creationism and evolution are two pieces of the same puzzle. That a creator entity wanted animals and bugs and fish and people, and used evolution as a means to get there.

Not sure it can be proved one way or the other, but that’s my theory. I’m pretty sure my 11-year-old brain wasn’t the first to stumble on that one, though.

peterpi

Nope. I believe along that line.
God created the physical, chemical, nuclear rules, set off the Big Bang, and is watching the Universe unfold.
I believe, ironically enough, in a form of Intelligent Design. God is the intelligence, evolution is the design.
Not everyone’s cup of tea, I agree, but it’s mine.

toohip

ouch!

peterpi

“Can you name just one reliable Creation scientist who promotes that idea?”

thor, there’s this marvelous invention called an Internet browser. You should try it some time.
I typed “young earth creation scientists” into Google, and came up with several sites that claim science proves a young Earth, included the alleged changes in the rate of the Earth’s rotation, the fact that no living species has a specimen older than 5.000 years old (bristlecone pines, and the like), the fact that the Earth’s human population grew from one billion in 1800 to 7 billion today and projecting that backwards, etc.

Now, I consider it all to be nonsense, but yes, thor, there are creation scientists busily trying to prove the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Now, if you believe differently, bravo.

thor

“thor, there’s this marvelous invention called an Internet browser. You should try it some time.” you made the assertion, not me. And you did your own google search, but failed to list even one name.

peterpi

Back to the letter writer’s point about marginalizing curriculum:
1): Create a dispute over some facet of the curriculum: The cosmology of the Universe, evolution, climate change, the role of gays in history, and on and on.
2): Stir up some segment of the public.
3): Elect people to school boards who were part of stirring up the public.
4) Insist that school textbooks “teach the controversy”
4) Declare that kids shouldn’t be involved in disputed knowledge
5) Buy textbooks that don’t teach, for example, the ancient age of the Universe, or biology texts that don’t teach evolution, or geography texts that don’t teach about climate change, etc. Or ban books from school libraries, like “The Lorax” because they offend the forestry industry, etc.
5) Voila! Marginalized curriculum.
In other words, thor, stir up trouble, then proclaim a subject is too controversial to teach to sensitive youth.

thor

Very good. But you failed to mention the rewriting of our history by liberals. It appears marginalized curriculum by liberals is okay with you. Who knew.

peterpi

Congratulations. You have shown you grasp what marginalized curriculum is.

thor

And you have shown that you are biased toward liberal ideology and have no room for truth that deflates liberal ideology. That is why you approve of the rewriting of text books to downplay things like the positive contributions of capitalism and patriotism.

peterpi

Do we let students decide whether phlogiston or oxygen is the explanation for why wood burns?
Do we let students decide whether the geocentric or heliocentric model is the correct model of the Solar System?
After all, they are all theories, and theories are theories, right?

thor

We are not talking about what students should decide, are we? And, yes, they are theories and are being taught. So, we should teach the theory of evolution side by side with the theory of Creation. Thanks for bringing clarity to the discussion. I would have never thought that you would bring the conversation around to showing why all theories should be taught. Bravo!

toohip

What a maroon!

thor

First you show no understanding of what a pun is, then you attempt to imitate an American icon, Bugs Bunny. You are too funny.

tomfromthenews

I’m impressed that you get the “maroon” reference!

thor

I’m impressed that toohip and you do, also. Or do either of you know who said it, being liberals and all.

tomfromthenews

I was trying to compliment you and you make it political, which has nothing to do with it. Bugs Bunny said it, of course, but I think he modified it even more with “ultra maroon”.

thor

Thanks for the compliment, then. But I don’t remember any “ultra maroon.” And toohip is still a liberal.

tomfromthenews

Bugs (laughing): “What an im-BASS-ile! What an ignor-AN-imous! What an ultra-maROON!” (Playing on the words “imbecile”, “ignoramous” and “moron”.)

peterpi

Because only conservatives think, in thor’s world.

thor

Correct. But you forgot to mention that liberals operate in emotion, like they are right now by asking for a higher minimum wage.

thor

Very good. Can you quote, from memory, the first 11 words from the opening number of each Bugs Bunny Show. (p.s. I can.)

toohip

(thor’s claim to fame!)

thor

Can you recite it?

peterpi

I remember them all marching onto the stage. Is there something about “strike the lights.”?

thor

… this is it,, the night of nights. No more rehearsing and cursing our parts, we know every part by heart… Like the humor of Al Capp and Walt Kelly, even Rocky and Bullwinkle, we no longer have talent that produces cutting edge comedy that doesn’t insult the audience. That’s why Sid Cesar will be missed.

peterpi

Thanks for the lyrics.
I’ve heard Rocky and Bullwinkle are even more appreciated as adults. All sorts of wry comments about the Cold War.

thor

My pleasure.

toohip

sure! “Can you quote, from memory, the first 11 words from the opening number of each Bugs Bunny Show. (p.s. I can.)”
Next question?

toohip

Guest

I can’t believe they took down my youtube bugs bunny clip!

toohip

thank you (again) I don’t consider myself a liberal, but I appreciate your endorsement! ;o)

thor

No, you are for sure a progressive.

toohip

THANK YOU! Phew, I dislike being called a “liberal”. . not because the right has tried to make it a pejorative, but because it carries too much weight I can’t bear. While I prefer “realist”, I see progressive as a “liberal realist.”

toohip

Really, thor??! You’re so lost and desperate that you have to try to dredge up something I never even said, maybe from another topic? Even a drowning man will grab the tip of a sword.

Tbone

creationism is not a theory, nor is it science.

thor

evolution is a theory, but it somehow got included as confirmed science.

Why do people who can’t defend evolution as more than a theory always add that gravity is also a theory?

peterpi

Because they are both scientific theories.
Heliocentrism is a theory.
Specific and general relativity is a theory.
Quantum physics began with theory.
Evolution is a theory.
Gravity is a theory.
They are all accepted as proven science.
Because you don’t have a clue as to what a scientific theory is.

thor

From the internet that I don’t know how to navigate- “A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that
have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence
accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a
theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.” When you read this, you can only conclude that evolution has no better standing than creation as a theory. One can observe and test micro evolution, no doubt. But that doesn’t lift macro evolution beyond one of the explanations of how we got here.

Tbone

…and how does one test the “theory” of creationism?

thor

How does one test the theory of evolution?

Tbone

The same way any other theory is tested. Which cant be done with the “theory” of creationism, because it’s not science. It’s religion.

thor

So, you can put evolution in a test tube or you can observe it? (I’m not talking about micro evolution.)

Tbone

yep. Not sure what test tubes have to do with anything though.

Now – how do we test creationism?

thor

The same way you test macro evolution, by saying you can do it.

Tbone

Ignorant. Show us tests of creationism. Evidently you’ve never heard of something called the fossil record. Or disease resistance.

thor

I’ve heard of both and neither explain how evolution works as you want people to accept. For one thing, you want people to accept the idea that we evolved from apes. That is important to you because it negates the possibility that we have a Spirit and that we are made in God’s image. It also helps support your idea that we aren’t accountable to God for our actions.

Tbone

Ah. So you’re saying evolution exists, just that we can’t explain it. Which is incorrect. The rest of your comment is crap.

thor

Nice twist of my words. You are the master of twisting others words. I never wrote that micro evolution, which is observable, exists. But you are hanging your hat on something bigger than that and the rest of my crap is why you are needing that theory in your life.

Tbone

Really? Now you’re saying that something that is observable doesn’t exist? Never mind that macro evolution is also observable, and qualitatively identical to microevolution.

Also, I don’t need any theory in my life. Science exists, whether you like it or not.

thor

I applaud science. Do you applaud the good the church does in the world?

Tbone

Irrelevant.

Dave52

For one thing, you want people to accept the idea that we evolved from apes. Ah, no, evolutionary theory holds that we all shared, or evolved from, a common ancestor. Which is why our DNA is so close.

Just how far are you going to get these days in any field of biology or medicine without an in-depth knowledge of evolutionary theory? Its the basis, the common language, the glue that holds the whole freakin’ thing together.

As well, keep in mind that there are hundreds of creationist “theories” – which one do you want taught? The one where the Grand Canyon is the result of Noah’s Flood?

thor

There is no theory that the Grand Canyon is the result of the Great Flood. Everyone knows the Grand Canyon came about because Paul Bunyan drug his axe behind him.

peterpi

There are creationists who insist that the Grand Canyon happened because of the Flood.
To believe otherwise needs an ancient Earth.

peterpi

thor wants only “one” creation theory taught. All the others are myths.
And there’s the rub …

thor

Help me out, O’ wise one. Which theory of Creation do I want taught? (Still the same old pete, all knowing and a wise sage who can read minds.)

peterpi

The conservative Christian version of biblical creation, dressed up in scientific lingo.
(You claim to read the liberal mind all the time.)

peterpi

Every aspect of evolution has been proven, thor.
It’s an accepted theory.
Why can’t you get it into your head that a divine creator, as commonly understood by Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Baha’i, and Sufism, is beyond the ability of science to measure, to prove or to disprove? To use your metaphor, you can’t put God into a test tube. You can’t weigh God. You can’t measure the black-body radiation of God. You can’t determine God’s volume.
But, you can measure sedimentation rates. You can observe and duplicate weathering of rock by water. You can test the ancient age of the Earth in a thousand different ways.
A creator is beyond science’s ability to turn into a theory, or to refute. Science can neither confirm nor deny a creator.
Therefore creationism can never be a scientific theory.
But, a creator is perfectly acceptable as a religious concept, and creationism belongs in the realm of religion. It does not belong in a public school classroom. Feel free to start a private school and teach it there all you want.

thor

“Every aspect of evolution has been proven..” Really? Maybe to the satisfaction of people who need to accept it because then they can say “I’m a spiritless being with no need to be accountable to a sovereign Deity.”

Tbone

The constitution gives us the right to chose our own religions beliefs, or none at all. People have long said creationism is a way to force religious beliefs on others.
‘Thanks for proving that point.

thor

Or, creationism is a way to help people realize their is a Creator. That this Creator lost His Creation due to willful disobedience. That the Creator sent His Son to Earth to become His substitute for us and paid the Creators just price in order to put us back in right RELATIONSHIP with the Creator. A relationship with God is different that becoming RELIGIOUS. The best part is, we achieve a relationship by our free will and not by force.

peterpi

That is a perfectly fine religious observation and belief.
It is NOT science.
Keep it in the religious realm.

Tbone

REally? Forcing your religious beliefs on others is “free will and not force”?

thor

I am not a Muslim, so I have no need to force my beliefs on anyone.

Tbone

Ah. Bigotry. Nice.

thor

Heh, I forgive you for being a religious bigot, so all is well.

Tbone

Really? I know you are, but what am I? Like a child. Perhaps you can show me bigoted statements I’ve made against religion?

thor

Okay, little boy, here goes- “REally? Forcing your religious beliefs on others is “free will and not force”?” You are so childish at this that it is embarrassing. But I love debating those who think they are better than others. That is what a bigot is, yes?

Tbone

No, that’s not bigotry. That’s pointing out what you want to do. Sorry you’re such a victim all the time.

Now, had I said I hate you because you’re a christian, you could make that argument. But, I didn’t. You did.

thor

Right. You use hateful words and/or lies and I’m the victim? What are you trying to prove when you use words like “forcing your religious beliefs?” Not only are you childish, you can’t see it because your bigoted blinders are on.

Tbone

Pointing out what you want to do (force your religious beliefs to be taught as science) is not hateful.

thor

Pointing it out in a hateful way is. And I made it clear that I have no need to force my beliefs on anyone, so how else can I read your remarks?

Tbone

Sorry about being a victim all the time.

thor

You can’t help it. But you are noble to fight your way through it and still show up and post your thoughts.

Tbone

Yawn. I know you are but what am I. Typical thor.

thor

Yawn. I know you are but what am I. Typical Tbone. See, it works both ways. But a sure sign you lost the argument from the jump was calling me a bigot and insisting that I was forcing you to believe.

toohip

(this is where thor knows he’s losing the argument so he tries the “I’m rubber, you’re glue. . “)

thor

And you and Tbone are pure so you never resort to that? Also, you only say that because you are so full of yourself that you don’t get the humor.

toohip

I guess I didn’t get the “joke?” LOL . . not! And while my comment was CLEARLY humor, I guess it’s YOU . . that can’t see the humor, and have to make it personal.
We. . . . “understand.” ;o)

thor

I followed the thread and can’t figure out what joke you are talking about, but I’m glad we “understand.” Its about time.

toohip

OMG that’s bigoted! How many Muslim missionaries do you hear about?

peterpi

That’s an absurd statement.
There are plenty of instances of Christians engaging in “convert or die”.

toohip

thor’s been to Robt’s church?

thor

Never.

toohip

It’s just that I’ve never seen you “speak in religious tongues” like this, thor. Usually you keep fairly secular, without denying your faith. I’ve seen a lot of this “speak”. . so what’s up. . you “get” religion or some second born again? Not criticizing, just noting. :o)

peterpi

What Tbone said.
Public schools are not the place for religious instruction.

denverharry

For once you got it correct. That is exactly the way I feel about it.

tomfromthenews

The discovery of ancient skeletal remains and the determination of their age via carbon dating…then the reconstruction of complete or near-complete skeletons of earlier physical versions of homo sapiens. This has all been done before. Why are people debating this?

peterpi

Because creationists argue that fossils, carbon-14 dating, potassium-argon dating, etc., sedimentation rates, the blue or red shifts of stars, etc., were all created in place by God to show the folly of human knowledge — or something like that.
To which I respond “God gave us rational, logical, inquisitive brains. Why shouldn’t God want us to use them?”

tomfromthenews

Bravo. Blind unquestioning allegiance to religious texts is an affront to the naturally inquisitive human brain.

thor

He does, every day, in every way. We have made huge discoveries that help us minister to the needs of those who get sick and to battle cancer, etc… And He has given evidence of His Creation so that we can reason and use logic to come to Him with repentant hearts and develop a relationship with Him. Lambert Dolphin Jr., research scientist at Stanford said: “I wasn’t even a true scientist until I met Jesus. I couldn’t be because I was cut off from reality…In Him I’ve found the reason for life and the key to everything.”

peterpi

Thor, proselytize all you want. But!
God does not belong in a public school science class.
Do you know how many different Christian denominations there are in the USA? Hundreds. Beyond that, do you know many separate religions there are in the USA? Scores. Public school science class is NOT the place to proselytize.
Feel free to tell people about Jesus or God — if they ask you.
Feel free to start a private school and teach all the creationism you want.
But, creationism can NOT be taught in a public school..

thor

I’m not. But I do debate the reliability of carbon dating.

tomfromthenews

I think that just about says it all.

thor

I agree.

Tbone

Do we really need to explain why?

thor

Once again, who is “we?”

Tbone

Do we? It’s clear you have no idea how science works. You can make your pithy little comments all day, the rest of us will just laugh and point.

thor

Let me try again. Who is “we” and who is “us?”

Tbone

Keep dodging the question, since you clearly can’t answer it. Based on your childish responses, it’s clear you have no clue.

thor

Why can’t you tell me who “we” and “us” are? I ask this of everyone who talks for others and they fail every time.

Tbone

You’re a child. Keep trying to change the subject, since you can’t give an honest answer. But since you asked, we means everyone laughing at creationists.

thor

So, you are almost admitting you speak for others. What if the others you speak for don’t like that you have taken it upon yourself to speak for them. I prefer to speak for myself because I feel confident in my opinion. Maybe you need to throw in with others for security reasons.

Tbone

It’s clear you have no idea why people refer to gravity when speaking of theories. Thanks for pointing out the fact that not only are you ignorant, you don’t even possess the intellectual curiosity to learn anything which might harm your precious, fragile little worldview. Instead you act like a child and make silly little childish attempts to change the subject.

thor

Not changing the subject. Just pointing out that it is ostentatious of you to speak for others.

guesswhodrews

Which theory of gravity are you referring to? Newton’s? Or Einstein’s?

Tbone

Either.

peterpi

You don’t speak only for yourself.
Get over it.
You speak for others all the time. You love putting thoughts and word into the minds and mouths of liberals.
But I forget: That which you can do, you hate in others.

toohip

So tell us, thor do you believe in creationism?

tomfromthenews

Obviously it is human beings who look around them and look for answers to questions like “Why?” and “How?” They can accept the fairy tales from a book of belief if they want, but they are also free to investigate and come to conclusions about a physical world from the physical evidence around them.

The first method should restrict itself to houses of faith and worship, and schools should stick to demonstrable science.

toohip

because maroons don’t get the correlation that the theory of gravity is pretty obvious, so is evolution.

thor

Maroons are stranded on Gulligan’s Island and they don’t get anything.

tomfromthenews

Creationism is based on faith which, by its very definition, eschews scientific observation, evidence, and conclusion.

peterpi

We know that. Most people know that.
But with creationists, we’re beating our head against a wall.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...